Have you read your CTCS today?

Category Theory for Computing Science is a fundamental book for any person willing to be a language designer, and it's free:
http://www.math.mcgill.ca/triples/Barr-Wells-ctcs.pdf

Thanks, about to take a shit, needed something to wipe my anus with.

I had an old shitty scan of this book, thank you for posting the newer version.

>>3
Was it shitty because >>2-san wiped his anus with it?

>>1

Category Theory for Computing Science is (...) free

You get what you pay for.

>>5
Usefulness and price don't always correlate.

>>6
Yes. For example, Linux is priced at $0 and has more than no utility for several purposes. However, other things which are cost-free, such as dead branches, have zero or near-zero utility for those purposes. Likewise, a car is not free, but also has zero utility for many of these purposes.

In this example, I assume that usefulness must be defined over a set of desired actions in order to be defined adequately.

QE fuckin D

For these reasons, I believe it is not always appropriate to use the saying "You get what you pay for."

>>5
SICP is also free you dumbass => http://web.mit.edu/alexmv/6.S184/sicp.pdf

>>6-8
I never claimed the rule to be general. SBCL and SICP are both free yet they are priceless in value. Most proprietary software has a non-negligible price tag attached to it, yet is often worthless. This paragraph disproves both directions on the `general statement' double implication.

CTCS and Haskell, on the other hand, are both free and worthless, which is why the colloquialism ``you got what you paid for'' applies.

>>9
The phrase ``you got what you paid for'', while it may be accurate in some cases, is undesirable as the way it is stated implies that it holds in general. Quite like gender hostile language in documentation that implies the reader is always male, which then implies that women don't have a place in the technology sector. While there are some readers that are male, not every reader is male and this should be addressed in the language to avoid these negative connotations, which are most likely unintentional but, as we have sometimes found, can be intentional. This puts the reader into an unfortunate position of being prepared to sexism even when the writer had no intention of communicating these hostile statements. So to differentiate yourself from the said sexists, use gender neutral language so that, one, the idea that both men and women are accepted in the technology sector is associated with your statements, and secondly, that you are not a sexist and women don't need to fear more hostile language in the next creeping paragraphs, and may instead relax and focus on the subject of the documentation.

Thus, as a user of free software, and many services and works that have no price for their usage, I encourage internet users to avoid using the phrase, ``you got what you paid for'', even when referring to unsatisfactory products that carried no charge, as the phrase is used by many to downplay said products in general and judge by their price rather than their individual merit(s). I expect a person to judge a person by their skill, rather than by their gender. Similarly, I expect a person to judge a product by its value for use, rather than the price associated with its availability. To avoid propagating the future discrimination of products that are available at low or no price, please use more accurate language to express your displeasure with what the have to offer, so that one, your language does not diminish the reputation of unrelated products that are also free, and two so that you are not associated with other persons that utter the said phrase. I don't think any of us, including yourself, want you to be associated with them.

>>9 sure is vocal about his Haskell hate.

Why is it that people seem to think Lisp and Haskell are somehow opposite and mutually exclusive languages? I like both, am I that much of a walking oxymoron?

>>10
Surely thou trollest.

implies the reader is always male, which then implies that women don't have a place in the technology sector.

Go back to Tumblr already, ey-kun.

>>11

Yes you are. Java is closer to Lisp than Haskell is.

I could enumerate a large number of (technical) differences, but the fundamental and causal divide is between those who think a computer should run-time programmable and those who don't (i.e. it's the dynamic vs static debate).

A Lisp system is a living thing, a Haskell program is just some text waiting to be batch processed.

>>11

The story goes that there once was a great meeting held annually where all the greatest wizards would gather. The meeting was called "Conference for Lisp and functional programming" or something like this.

I asked a great wizard and one of the fathers of multiple Lisp languages why these meetings were no more. He told me (paraphrasing) "Whenever a paper on Lisp was presented, the functional programmers would leave, and whenever a functional programming paper was presented, the Lisp programmers would leave. There were few of us who stayed for both. To be quite frank, the functional programming people judged things almost solely on how much greek letters they saw in its presentation".

Perhaps this may be enlightening to you.

>>10

implies the reader is always male, which then implies that women don't have a place in the technology sector.

Actually that last part [i]is[/i] correct, women indeed have no place in the technology sector. Neither do men, for that matter. Gender, and thus masculinity and femininity, has no place in the sciences; neanderthal-era social protocols and mores are unscientific and ultimately destructive.

>>13

Go back to Tumblr already, ey-kun.

I am the one responsible for most `ey' utterances on these boards, and I consider >>10 to be a preachy little smeghead. Now, to clarify, I don't use gender-neutral language out of respect for women or femininity, or out of some beautiful tale of inclusion and sensitivity; on the contrary, if the concepts of gender, women, femininity, men, and masculinity were somehow physicalized, I would spit, stomp, and defecate upon them.

But I digress.

I'm Jewish.

I don't wish to be a language designer.

You get what you pay for applies more to hardware than software.

As a smeghead, I was offended by your post.

>>12
yes

>>16
I wasn't being serious. Inspiration: https://progrider.org/prog/read/1386685004

>>11
Haskell is just at a different level.

You didn't read CTCS and that's why you can't implement Hindley-Milner >>= https://github.com/ericnormand/hindley-milner

>>23
Bah. Back in my day we did type systems in O(1) by smacking whichever sonofabitch didn't document his correctly in the first cons.